PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Jesus H Gabz]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.

It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Without wanting to getting in to the whole

This is what I'm intrigued by too.
Without going down the "obviously United can do whatever they want, dur, dur, dur" route, did United have to report the finances of the dealings Ferguson did with the owners of the club outside of United? So did they have to report all the goings on with the racehorses and whatever else?
Surely, that's a similar business transaction as Mancini working for the Abu Dhabi club and as long as everyone has paid tax in the correct way depending on the country the business has been conducted in then what business is it of the Premier League?
When does a working business relationship outside of a football club become disguised owner funding?
Does City have to give the Premier League access to the finances of the restaurant in town owned by Pep, Txiki and Soriano? Do they have to prove that they own the restaurant and not Sheikh Mansour?
This is where I don't understand where the whole 'if City are guilty then people will go to jail' stuff comes from, if tax has been paid and all the accounts are in order and show where money came from and went to then why would HMRC or the Fraud Squad get involved?
Surely the only issue would be whether the Premier League think that Mancini being paid by a club in Abu Dhabi was actually disguised remuneration for the City job? That would be a Premier League issue rather than an legal issue.
Like a lot of things with them, it feels like the Premier League have put all these half-arsed rules in place that don't stand up to scrutiny and don't work particularly well in the real world.

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

 

[slbsn]

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred

 

[Lord Blue]

Whilst the theory is interesting. Do you think perhaps the red cartel will push to reform the Premier League? Not as drastic as to what happened back in 1992, when we saw the creation of the Premier League.
When we do come out of this and clear our name, the cartel will want action of some sort. These clubs are more powerful and influential now than when they were back in 1992, by which I mean financially and with their global reach with social media.
As far as I'm aware the FA are yet to comment on anything to do with us (which I understand as they are the governing body and need to remain impartial) but again once we have cleared our name, they may need to step in and do something with the Premier League.
After all the Premier League will be at it's weakest. Investors, sponsors, broadcasters etc. will want answers and heads will roll.
It's all a big game of chess with everyone and when this goes our way I just have this gut feeling it'll be a win win for not just us as fans and a club but for a lot of others too.

It would be interesting to see how the Independent Regulator would view the cartel attempting to Reform the Premier League. Should such a thing come to pass.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.


It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

My thoughts exactly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.

The "good faith" breach only applies to the filing incorrect accounts allegations (also to non-cooperation after 2018). So I think what they are trying to say is that Mancini's consultancy agreement was clearly part of Mancini's salary and should have been included in the club's accounts. Because it wasn't, the accounts were wrong. It's pretty hard to prove that, I think, for a whole host of reasons and, in that case, the whole thing will probably be time limited anyway.

The breaches in respect of the manager remuneration rules (or the player remuneration rules for that matter) don't refer to the "good faith" breach so will probably just be a procedural issue with the PL. Did we comply with the rules as written? And I think the answer to that is clearly yes, especially after the Leicester judgment.

I think that's the situation, although it could all be bollocks :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Whilst the theory is interesting. Do you think perhaps the red cartel will push to reform the Premier League? Not as drastic as to what happened back in 1992, when we saw the creation of the Premier League.
When we do come out of this and clear our name, the cartel will want action of some sort. These clubs are more powerful and influential now than when they were back in 1992, by which I mean financially and with their global reach with social media.
As far as I'm aware the FA are yet to comment on anything to do with us (which I understand as they are the governing body and need to remain impartial) but again once we have cleared our name, they may need to step in and do something with the Premier League.
After all the Premier League will be at it's weakest. Investors, sponsors, broadcasters etc. will want answers and heads will roll.
It's all a big game of chess with everyone and when this goes our way I just have this gut feeling it'll be a win win for not just us as fans and a club but for a lot of others too.

Be interesting to see if anything comes out of this about influence or pressure put on the PL by the red cartel, but I'd imagine (assuming there was pressure) they used the age-old threat of a breakaway to push their cause. They did that to end the ticket money sharing agreement, establish the PL, get changes to the CL format, etc.

That's probably why that (assuming it happened) we asked for Masters' emails and WhatsApp messages.

 

[Wayneclarkemunchescarrots]

No, this is a fight between the worlds most expensive lawyers against homeless children from the streets of Trafford, Merseyside and North London whom the Premier League are using as volunteers.

All fed on rashford fish fingers

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.


It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

I have always believed that given the chance the PL would have dropped this when UEFA failed, but the G14/Cartel would not allow that, and the change of PL investigation team, changed the way they went after City. My belief is while they would like to damage City, breaking the PL, so they could walk away blaming City, had a far higher priority

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

A mate of mine is currently down the rabbit hole about Andy Burnham, claiming he’s knee deep in corruption. He keeps sharing social media posts on our WhatsApp group from what are usually far right accounts. I’ve told him to post his shitty conspiracy theories elsewhere. I think he’s getting a lot of it off Nick Buckley who he claims to be mates with. Now I’m no massive fan of Burnham myself but unless people can prove he’s up to something dodgy then they should shut the fuck up.

Burnham is not smart enough to be corrupt.